Low light & flashlight work

[Erick Gelhaus]

(Wasn't sure where to put this, Mods obviously feel free to move it)

Helped teach a low-light / intermediate pistol class last week over several nights. A few observations that seemed to come about because of how low light / flashlight training happens in other environments.

- Saw a lot of issues with people getting the beams, especially the hot spot where they wanted them such as into other rooms or dark holes while unintentionally wasting the light on near walls. Spent a fair amount of time working on this while working them through indoor simulators ("shoot houses").
21769
- There's discussion about trying to work through barriers created by the presence of brighter lights & darker holes in several places. Setting up the problem in buildings can be easy; however, setting it up on a range might not be all that easy. The instructor I ws teaching with - Walt W - identified a solution and made it workable. He developed a mount that would solidly attach to a turning target frame in order to send nearly all of its lumens back uprange at the shooter.
Now the tudent had to burn through the light in order to illuminate the target & engage it. Merely slinging some light that direction (a common problem) wouldn't work, one needed some semblance of propper technique to get enough light on the bad guy.

Enough lumens:
21770
Not enough lumens:
21771
The target / light set-up ...
21768
Walt adapted this onto one of the Northern Lights tactical robot targets. The students got charged by the flashlight weilding target while trying to engage it. If I can figure out how to get the video over here I will.

Fwiw, after the first (8am to 8pm), the class was run from 1pm to 11pm. It was square range in the afternoon & early evening, then live fire low light square work, followed by simulators and finished off with practical application of flashlight / search techniques in the house, the woods, and a lengthy, deep, rocky draw.

Anyway, just wanted to bring up the light direction issue and a way to reinforce proper technique.

[NH Shooter]

Angus, a great topic and one I will follow closely.

Based on the photos it looks like the FBI hold was preferred? When it comes time to actually fire, I can still shoot faster and more accurately using the Harries, though for indoor search the FBI hold seems the most flexible. I never warmed up to the neck hold, though I can see how it would be superior to the FBI in terms of indexing the light on target.

For the outdoor live fire, what was the distance to the target?

Edit

I hope there can be some discussion of the gear as well. For example, flashlights can be configured for wide, flood-type beams with minimal central hot spot which would make exact target alignment less critical but also cause more back-lighting through illumination of nearby walls; or they can be configured with a narrower beam that better focuses the lumens on the target and minimizes back-lighting, but requires more critical alignment.

Everyone discusses "lumens" but IMO, beam profile is as (or more) important in determining the characteristics of a light and its applications.

[peterb]

Everyone discusses "lumens" but IMO, beam profile is as (or more) important in determining the characteristics of a light and its applications.

Absolutely. For a general purpose/dog walking light, I like a wide smooth beam with "soft" edges. Hard transitions can be distracting when the light is moving But a tight hotspot is great for focussing attention and reaching out over a longer distance.

[Erick Gelhaus]

It's a wee bit difficult working the line & taking cell phone photos, so I did not get good ones with the shooters working jaw/neck index and Harries. Square range work ended at 25 yds, however the simulators and go search for your class mates took the work from arms length to the effective limit of the terrain. Those photos were at 5 and 7 yds.

There was plenty of discussion on gear over 5 nights, though I have no idea if anyone if writing an AAR anywhere.

Harries is a solid shooting position (ref Helms in the Bomar incident), but it may not be the best search position if we're trying to get muzzles off people who haven't warranted them. I find myself working between between jaw/neck index and a modified FBI when searching inside & out.

Since I was thinking software and programming more than hardware ... ( Maybe a better discussion, before beam shape, is when one last changed their batteries. I shouldn't be but I do get surprised when cops & normal people show up for low light training with dim lights due to batteries. There are a metric butt load of lights out there. While I keep looking for someone to replace my preferred work handheld, it wasn't the 1K lmn new one I was using for the class; in spite of supposedly repeatedly getting it set to just High/Off, it kept returning to the strobe mode. I look for a solid, centered hot spot with a pretty uniform softer area around it and plenty of throw. Never mind how little I think of a WML that suddenly begins strobing.)

[TGS]

Timely topic. We did a lot of night shooting in a course I took last week. Previously, in my private sector and police shooting, we only ever did enough night shooting with white lights to make us realize how much harder it is than daylight. This last course we did some reps on static steel, but then unlike previous classes we did a LOT of work shooting on the move, and from cover. That's really where I felt the money was made, as the dynamic part really magnified our errors.

FWIW, no problem with target acquisition out to 25 yards using the Surefire XC1, oft maligned for being "weak" and having a flood beam. I actually had a lot more trouble using my handheld, which is more lumens and has a tighter hotspot/greater throw. Reason being my technique wasn't spot on, and the errors heavily outweighed any paper-tiger advantage. In other words, I found that you can't fight through errors in technique, and a "better" light will not make up for errors.

This awesome practical application led me to believe that proficiency is 100 times more important than flood vs concentrated hotspot, lumen rating, etc.

I've heard people on here say that bounce-back on white surfaces from high power lights is a myth or whatever, but it had some pretty severe effects on the entire class. As the course was changed so that the stations became harder, one station made it impossible to not have bounce back off a white surface.....and it was brutal on our performance, especially for the weak-links who hadn't yet learned their lessons on previous stages and weren't even trying to mitigate such.

Shooting on the move and especially working from the cover (standing each side, kneeling each side, over top, through different size windows, prone from cover) really taught me when and where to use which technique, and that knowing them all is pretty relevant and that choosing one while eschewing the others is a mistake.

Again, none of these lessons or competency was effectively taught by doing static drills on targets in any of my prior low-light/no-light training.

[Mike C]

This is exactly the kind of thread I was hoping would get started after seeing all the other threads about lights and lumens. I hope some of the SME type LEO’s will chime in quite a bit. Running a carbine with a light is definitely different than running a pistol with one. I have crap for experience with lights and pistols and I look forward to seeing where this thread goes and learning what I can. Thanks OP.

[43Under]

Does no one (besides SMEs like Mike Seeklander and Mike Pannone) use a temple index for handheld lights? I see lots of mentions of FBI hold, neck index, cheek index, and Harries. I have found in my limited testing (as a layman) that the temple gives you a good reference point and keeps the light high enough to keep your sights illuminated and throws most of the light downrange while not lighting up the backs of your arms as much.

[Sigfan26]

Does no one (besides SMEs like Mike Seeklander and Mike Pannone) use a temple index for handheld lights? I see lots of mentions of FBI hold, neck index, cheek index, and Harries. I have found in my limited testing (as a layman) that the temple gives you a good reference point and keeps the light high enough to keep your sights illuminated and throws most of the light downrange while not lighting up the backs of your arms as much.

I tend to index the light with my thumb right under my left ear. It is easily indexed rapidly, gives good field of view, and provides enough resistance that the light doesn’t bump around as I move my head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JDD]

FWIW, no problem with target acquisition out to 25 yards using the Surefire XC1, oft maligned for being "weak" and having a flood beam. I actually had a lot more trouble using my handheld, which is more lumens and has a tighter hotspot/greater throw. Reason being my technique wasn't spot on, and the errors heavily outweighed any paper-tiger advantage. In other words, I found that you can't fight through errors in technique, and a "better" light will not make up for errors.


This sounds like a great course...

I am reasonably convinced that having a light that is physically attached to my firearm provides me with more of a shooting advantage in low light than any reasonable amount of low light and sustainment training with a handheld. A handheld light adds an entirely separate system that I have to align with a target while simultaneously aiming my firearm.

[SoCalDep]

Great thread!

A few thoughts...

We teach two flashlight/handgun techniques to recruits and in-service - the Harries and the "neck" index, which we've always said is adjusted between temple and neck depending on what works best. I find the temple area indexed against the side of the head right next to my eye works best. Even better that I'm left eyed and right handed. I've begun calling the technique the "eye" index with credit to Mike Seeklander because I think it's generally a better location to mitigate shadow from the extended arm/gun and provide the best illumination of the sights and threat. I think it's extremely important to have at minimum, two techniques to place the light on either side of the gun. That's why when I threw out our old low light program and re-wrote it, I simplified it with Harries and the neck/eye index. I also like Harries and eye-index because I can teach the same technique to be used with a Streamlight PT1L or a Streamlight SL20X. Whatever light the student brings these techniques will work. Old curriculum gave too many options, with too little practice, and minimal if any tactical application. Now the techniques get presented efficientlytaught quickly, there's lots of practice, and students get to apply the techniques to basic tactical principles (light management, light discipline, clearing corners, angles, using cover, and general shooting techniques).

That said, I think Harries sucks as a technique for most people. I feel this way not because it's a bad technique, but because most people don't practice flashlight techniques enough and it's complicated compared to the eye-index. I've seen many students attempt to shoot in the Harries technique under stress and VERY frequently the light ends up pointed down at the ground. I've also seen it happen on some body cam footage of actual shootings. Even with the flashlight in our hand, there is a strong urge to shoot like we train, which is two hands on the gun, thus the support hand rotates forward and the light dips. Can it be used effectively? Yep, and it has. That said, there are also serious issues when people who don't train frequently depend on it.

I agree with Angus' initial post. It seems there is a consistent and hard to break desire to illuminate close obstacles, walls, cover, etc., and then move the hot spot of the light into the threat area. In some cases I've seen students who very much know better keep part or even all of the hot spot on close cover, then sort of "jump" the light into the open as if they're popping out, rather than putting the light where it does them good, or using light discipline and waiting to activate until the light beam will be clear of cover. I'm generally a fan of using available distance from cover to work the angle better, but in low light when using lights, it is often advantageous to close a bit with the cover/angle to minimize the amount of light that's splashing back.

Beam profile is important - I'd say just as important as lumen output, and maybe more in certain situations. I'm generally a fan of as much light as possible. I frequently demonstrate to students by having a volunteer with a white ballistic vest stand in front and I illuminate it with a 200 lumen light. This is after the students see how bright a light is on a dark blue barricade, so they're usually surprised by the brightness against the white material. I tell them to note now long it takes for their basic night-adapted vision to return after the flash of 200 lumens. Then I flash a 2200 lumen light - which is obviously brighter, but still takes about the same time to recover basic night vision (full night-adapted vision takes much longer than the few seconds in this case). Yes... the 2200 light messes with night vision, but so does the 200 lumen light and when it's on it's a big advantage. Of course, viewing the source of the light creates the most significant effect on vision, so training should include ways to mitigate the possibility of illuminating reflective glass picture frames, mirrors, etc.

I think the Modified FBI has its place for searching, but it's a horrible shooting technique for most people. We don't teach it, but I think it has value in the right circumstances.

CCW/Off duty has less need for a weapon-mounted light but better have a flashlight. For home defense and Law Enforcement, I'm a strong advocate for WMLs. In fact, were I king, every single law enforcement patrol officer in the United States would have a WML on their handgun with a grip-activated pressure switch and the training to use it properly. I think a WML can be an advantage on a CCW gun and some of the more modern lights (Streamlight TLR-6 and Surefire XC-1) are getting there for being practical CCW-friendly WMLs, but while my on-duty backup has a light and laser (Glock 43 with TLR-6), my off-duty doesn't. When off duty I carry a relatively small but powerful flashlight.

Speaking of training with WMLs, it's needed. It's needed WAY more if not using a pressure switch. In fact, if you're not using a pressure switch, there's a really good chance it will do you no good anyway because under stress you simply won't use the light. We did a study. Short version of results is that with training varying from pretty much nothing to about 45 minutes of instruction, about 82% of study participants activated their weapon-light when engaging a target under sudden stress. A whopping 0% (same experience range) activated toggle-switch equipped lights. In that same study, WML users were measurably more accurate than hand-held light users, who (if I remember correctly) were less accurate than those who simply shot in the dark. It wasn't a scientific study, but it reinforces what I've seen over thousands of students.

[NH Shooter]

There are a metric butt load of lights out there. While I keep looking for someone to replace my preferred work handheld, it wasn't the 1K lmn new one I was using for the class; in spite of supposedly repeatedly getting it set to just High/Off, it kept returning to the strobe mode. I look for a solid, centered hot spot with a pretty uniform softer area around it and plenty of throw.

I feel your pain. After using Malkoff's high-low bezel switch for a while, I've become a huge fan of this simple mechanical UI: tighten the bezel for high, loosen it for low - zero surprises when the light is activated. My "programmable" lights are now left for casual utilitarian tasks, as are those lights that change mode by multiple pokes of the tail cap switch.

The "back splatter" of reflected light can be somewhat mitigated with a narrow beam, but for indoor search I truly prefer a wide, even flood beam with a soft edge (like the Malkoff Wildcat v.6). Outdoors I find the hard edge of a reflector design is not a distraction and a powerful hot spot is very useful. For outdoor work I have yet to find anything I like better than the Malkoff Hound Dog 18650.

Not trying to turn this excellent thread on technique into a gear discussion (or a Malkoff advertisement), but one should be aware of beam and UI choices, and the strengths/limitations of any light they chose to work their technique with.

[TGS]

Does no one (besides SMEs like Mike Seeklander and Mike Pannone) use a temple index for handheld lights? I see lots of mentions of FBI hold, neck index, cheek index, and Harries. I have found in my limited testing (as a layman) that the temple gives you a good reference point and keeps the light high enough to keep your sights illuminated and throws most of the light downrange while not lighting up the backs of your arms as much.

I use it, yes, but it illuminates the fuck out of you when you're using it from cover. I found it works better than other techniques when on the move (I mean moving).

If a temple or neck hold isn't illuminating you when you're peeking out from cover, that's a big indicator that you're not actually using the cover. FBI technique works a lot better from cover without illuminating yourself, ditto the Harries or cigar hold if you're sucked up on your cover.

[Erick Gelhaus]

The cigar/syringe/Rogers/SF was the hardest one for sudents to get "right" when it had to be spot on to burn through the incoming light. And it requires a hand set-up that few actually use when searching with the handheld.

Givens' documentation on his students' low light shootings should be considered when putting together training for off-duty, CCW folks. Likewise, better L/E data collection on our low light shootings would be really helpful for us.

I'm appreciative of most folks efforts to keep this on "how" rather than "with what."

The jaw index is better run for most a bit higher up the face - I've got pictures of it illuminating the back of an RDS when too low - but calling it a temple index is only only going to send some of the deep end ... maybe "Cheek Index"? I find I flow through the positions to get the light onto whichever side of the gun (cover) I need to get it at that moment.

SHO shooting and some manipulations definitely come into play here. Some of the variables worthy of more looking at are:
- Pistol upright vs canted in or even canted slightly out (individual dependent);
- Thumb up vs thumb down towards mag release? Does a frame mounted mechanical safety impact that?
- Pushing the pistol frame forward rather than pulling the slide rearward when reloading or clearing stoppages to keep the handheld light from bonking the shooter;
- How much hand, how many fingers can you get on the slide while dealing with the presence of the handheld (never mind keeping a lanyard out of the slide during reloads);

What I got in the academy (late 80s) was different from what Ken Good / SFI was putting out in '00 and the evaluations, advancements, & re-affirming of existing techniques that goes on today all make it interesting. And then each of us combines it with what we're seeing on car stops, per contacts, searching buildings & open air environments with our own light pollution issues.

[NH Shooter]

I'm appreciative of most folks efforts to keep this on "how" rather than "with what."



Post edited to keep thread on-topic.

[JHC]

This is exactly the kind of thread I was hoping would get started after seeing all the other threads about lights and lumens. I hope some of the SME type LEO’s will chime in quite a bit. Running a carbine with a light is definitely different than running a pistol with one. I have crap for experience with lights and pistols and I look forward to seeing where this thread goes and learning what I can. Thanks OP.

Yes this is a high octane PF thread. Much value.

[NH Shooter]

SHO shooting and some manipulations definitely come into play here. Some of the variables worthy of more looking at are:
- Pushing the pistol frame forward rather than pulling the slide rearward when reloading or clearing stoppages to keep the handheld light from bonking the shooter;
- How much hand, how many fingers can you get on the slide while dealing with the presence of the handheld (never mind keeping a lanyard out of the slide during reloads);



My practice is to just get the light out of the way entirely;

http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/mdcvme-2.jpg

http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/mdcvme-3.jpg

[TCB]

The temple, cheek, eye, neck (I’m just gonna call it FACE) index works pretty good if you need to shoot one handed. Most of the time when we’re searching for bodies / cutting sign the flashlight is being held near the waist with the bezle towards the thumb (I’m gonna call this the Hardy Boy’s technique), most people hide low & underneath things so having the light lower works better...transitioning between the Hardy Boys and the Face Index is pretty easy by just flipping the light 180 as you bring it up. I’ve also put myself on the clock and tried just letting go of my handheld and transitioning to the WML on my sidearm...that actually works much better for me...time wise and with better hits due to both hands being on the gun, YRMV.
Lots of Lumens with lots of throw is what I prefer for all my lights, I’ve been inside single wide trailers with white walls and lots of mirrors searching for bodies with 500 lumen WMLs (handgun & rifle) and never been blinded...the trick is keep the flashlight pointed down at a approximately 45* angle (low ready) and use the lumens & spill to your advantage (think hotspot aimed where the floor meets the wall). There is never really any reason to point a flashlight directly at something when your just searching. Once you have identified a target then spotlight and process it as appropriate.

[03RN]

My technique and experience mirrors TCB. I'd rather drop the handheld and fight with the wml most of the time. Especially since I'm not going to be using the wml for 99% of what a hand held gets used for

I've gotten pretty good mitigating obstacles when searching except when it comes to using a light in the woods. I get so much bounce back from leaves and such that I have a hard time seeing past the first layer of foliage. Any tips for that?

Should help us coon hunters shoot faster as well:cool:

[TCB]

The last AO I worked was triple canopy brush that was crazy thick...once I got a 1000 lumen Surefire Fury my life was made much easier. The lumens, throw and beam pattern really cut through the brush, grass, cacti and vines and allowed me to see folks tucked waaaay back in there.

[AMC]

Vertically and horizontally displacing the light as you move can also work to see past brush or other obstacles, such as furniture or boxes indoors. Intermittent lighting, and changing the angle, throws the light into areas where just one angle produces shadows.

[03RN]

The last AO I worked was triple canopy brush that was crazy thick...once I got a 1000 lumen Surefire Fury my life was made much easier. The lumens, throw and beam pattern really cut through the brush, grass, cacti and vines and allowed me to see folks tucked waaaay back in there.

Did you find that lesser lights were giving a lot of bounce back as well?

What do you think is the most important? Lumens? How tight the beam? Or is it really just a light needs what the fury provides?

[TCB]

I use a bunch of lights on duty all SF, a 320/15, a couple 500’s and a 1,000 as well as a Petzl headlamp on occasion. At night, for me with my eyes (kind of light sensitive from lazek 10 years ago) I have never had a problem with splash back...when I’ve been searching in dense brush, more lumens are better. In a structure 500 seems fine but even having used the 1000 indoors there were no ill effects for me, but I try not to look directly at the hot spot...use the spill. I don’t know from beam patterns but the Fury family leaves nothing to be desired for me. But as always YRMV.

Alternating where you are shining the light in thick brush like AMC just said is absolutely how you do that...

[Erick Gelhaus]

Vertically and horizontally displacing the light as you move can also work to see past brush or other obstacles, such as furniture or boxes indoors. Intermittent lighting, and changing the angle, throws the light into areas where just one angle produces shadows.

Three of the nights, after the shooting stopped due to noise / time issues, (having been shown it) the students were doing it while searching three different environments for their classmates.

[SoCalDep]

That sounds like a great class and excellent use of the time when shooting has to stop. I'll have to keep that in mind. Tons of good information. Needless to say I really like this thread!

[KeeFus]

As mentioned, very timely thread. We are, as of last week, issuing WML’s on pistols and I’m probably going to set an order after June to finish outfitting our AR’s. We are currently using TLR-1s for pistols and the Safariland 6360’s for holsters for patrol and Detectives got an additional 6378.

While teaching the first class last week I noticed a huge gap on the mouth of the holster and pulled a detective in front of class. Saying it now before I get flamed...all weapons and people had been triple checked for ammo prior to coming into class. That said, I stuck my pinkie finger into the gap on the 6378 and pulled the trigger. I couldn’t do it on the 6360’s.

On Thursday I pulled the 6378 holsters back from the Detectives and we ordered the 7378’s which do not exhibit that issue.

My class was just a “how to” beginner level class. Most of the class dealt with what you can and can not do (policy), drawing and reholstering, and live fire drills. What’s needed in our future is another class which deals with using the WMLs in conjunction with a handheld light. Guess I need to start Googling for Instructor level classes. 😁